I hated Mel Gibson long before hating Mel Gibson was cool. In the early going, I liked him in Mad Max and in Gallipoli. I was tiring a bit of his smug machismo by the time he started grinding out Lethal Weapons, but it was Braveheart
that really put me over the edge. Yes, the battle scenes were
remarkable, even revelatory; but they could hardly compensate for the
vainest self-directed performance ever by someone not named "Barbra
Streisand," and for the movie's vicious, gratuitous homophobia. Gibson's thuggish preening was confirmed by his next film, Ransom,
in which we were expected to applaud him for being the Worst Parent of
All Time. But it was still a long and lonely decade to be a Mel hater
before The Passion of the Christ and the passion of the drunk-driving anti-Semite made it something approaching conventional wisdom.

All of which is to say that I am not a person inclined to give Mel
Gibson the benefit of the doubt as a director, actor, or human being.
But while his latest film, Apocalypto, may not tell us much about
the latter two categories, it confirms that, under the right
circumstances, he is indeed a fiercely talented director. A primitive
fable of victimhood and vengeance, enslavement and escape, Apocalypto is a minor masterpiece of cinematic bravado.

Set in the jungles of Central America, Apocalypto is a historic
(or prehistoric) epic in spoken Mayan with English subtitles. It's an
experiment that works better than Gibson's earlier foray into biblical
Aramaic, for, unlike Jesus and his persecuters, the protagonists of Apocalypto
are men (mostly) of action rather than words. Indeed, one could skip
the dialogue altogether and miss very little of the story: Jaguar Paw
(Rudy Youngblood) is a member of a peaceful, Edenic tribe (as long as
you're not a tapir) whose village is attacked by a raiding party that
bears a suspicious resemblance to refugees from The Road Warrior.
Those not killed are taken as slaves--including Jaguar Paw, though not
before he hides his pregnant wife and toddler son in a well. The
captives are marched to a Mayan metropolis (one of the more persuasive
visions of Hell ever committed to celluloid) to be sacrificed to the
gods. But Jaguar Paw escapes and flees homeward (the well in which he
hid his family has an unfortunate tendency to flood when it rains) with a
band of homicidal enforcers hot on his tail.

That's basically it. There are vanishingly few subplots or discursions
(and those that exist are often dropped: The orphaned children of the
village, for instance, are heartbreakingly portrayed at the beginning of
the film and then essentially forgotten; wouldn't they have gone back
to the village and found Jaguar Paw's wife?) Yet despite its overlong,
139-minute runtime, Apocalypto goes by in a visceral rush of
striking, if sometimes preposterous, imagery: the torch-wielding war
party loping through the midnight jungle; the dust-coated mineworkers
who recall the photographs of Sebastião Salgado; Jaguar Paw emerging
from a pit of mudlike quicksand like an atavistic variation on Martin
Sheen's jungle assassin in Apocalypse Now.

And blood, everywhere blood, red as lipstick, wet as a kiss. It is the
essential element, the alpha and omega, the primeval fluid coursing
through the veins of Gibson's film. It drips, it pools, it rushes; at
one point it even sprays from a bashed-in skull with Pythonesque
enthusiasm. Yet for all Gibson's sanguinary attentions, Apocalypto
does not fetishize suffering. Though many characters are killed
violently, the film does not linger over them. How could it? It has to
keep pace with Jaguar Paw in his sprint across a leafy continent. If the
thought of the occasional beheading or villain having his face chewed
off by a jaguar upsets you, you may want to skip this movie. But it is
not, thankfully, an exercise in cinematic sadism like The Passion.

The film has its flaws: Gibson's continued promiscuity with slow-motion;
a jarring, deus ex machina conclusion, et cetera. But it is the rare
epic in recent years that has a clear vision of what it wants to do and
achieves it utterly. Gibson's primary flaws as a filmmaker--his vanity
and tendency to bully--are both held in check, the first by his absence
from the film, the second by its setting, a political context so distant
from ours that it might as well be Middle Earth. (Yes, yes, I know it's
about how great civilizations--hint, hint--rot from within rather than
being conquered from outside. But this is a metaphor so abstracted as to
be essentially meaningless.) What remains is Gibson's
never-more-evident technical mastery and his remarkable sense of motion,
both narrative and cinematic. It may be a simple film, even a
simple-minded one, in terms of its structure and ideas. But it's a film
that goes.

Moreover, as clearly as Apocalypto marks a technical evolution
for Gibson, there are hints it may represent a moral one as well. As an
actor and director, Gibson has long been obsessed with manliness. In Braveheart,
in particular, he was so concerned with according himself every
masculine virtue that he didn't realize some are incompatible: You can't
be both forever faithful to your wife and a ladies man who gives
the pretty princess the night of her life. More tellingly still, there
were his foils in the film, the mincing gay caricatures whose sexual
orientation was equated with weakness, self-indulgence, and stupidity.
(Remember: We were expected to applaud--or at least snicker--when one of
them was thrown from a window to his death.)

Early in Apocalypto, I cringed at the introduction of a
subsidiary character, a hapless village-mate of Jaguar Paw's who was the
butt of repeated jokes--including a primitive version of the
Ben-Gay-in-the-jockstrap routine--for being unable to get his wife
pregnant. Slope-shouldered, heavy set, his round face like a target for
the world's abuse, he seemed primed to be another of Gibson's cautionary
tales about unmanly men. But he's not. On the contrary, he is, after
Jaguar Paw, the most likable character in the film; given the
opportunity, he more than once proves himself a hero. It's a small
thing, but where Mel Gibson is concerned I set the moral hurdle low.
With Apocalypto, he clears it easily.

The Home Movies List: Underrated Action

Rob Roy (1995). Arguably less an "action" film
than a historical drama, though boasting one of the best swordfights
ever committed to film. Scores lower than Braveheart on the
I-wish-movies-were-more-like-football-games scale, but higher on almost
every other. It is understated, humane, and textured, and the quiet
tragedy that suffuses almost every frame of the film is considerably
more affecting than Mel's rowdy martyrdom. Moreover, it's the rare film
of its kind that finds space for a strong, central female role (a
magnificent Jessica Lange) instead of using women, à la Braveheart, merely as mirrors to reflect back the male stars' inflated self images.

The Peacemaker (1997). When this movie was widely
panned upon release, it went a long way toward persuading me that any
effort to make an even minimally straight, non-ironic action movie was
doomed. Yes, Nicole Kidman as the head of an antiterrorist task force is
a bit of a stretch. But George Clooney is in excellent form; there are a
few very good action set pieces; and the villain--a sad, soulful
Bosnian terrorist played by Marcel Iures--is a nice change from the
sneering baddies who typically populate Hollywood. The major knock on
the film was that it was put together from familiar parts, which is true
enough. But given that 80 percent of Hollywood's attempts to come up
with something new are awful--the hero can see into the future! The
villain wants to crash the earth into the sun!--is this really such a
bad thing?

Ronin (1998). Like The Peacemaker, an
effort to make an action movie not predicated on the hero's ability to
leap out of an airplane with no parachute and survive. Robert DeNiro
headlines and is entirely solid, but the greater pleasure is the deep
and varied supporting cast: Jean Reno, Natascha McElhone, Stellan
Skarsgård, Sean Bean, Jonathan Pryce, Michael Lonsdale. A throwback to
the (often British) action films of the 1960s and '70s, it drags at
moments, and the concluding voiceover is abominable. (Director's cut,
please.) But it's a bouncy ride until then, featuring the most intense
car chases since The French Connection.

Serenity (2005). The directorial debut of pop
genius Joss Whedon ("Buffy the Vampire Slayer," "Angel"), this
big-screen adaptation of his "Firefly" series is the best space opera
since the first two Star Wars movies and one of the most
criminally neglected entertainments of the last decade. Had it been
cursed with a gluttonous budget, a raft of "stars," and the requisite
McDonalds tie-ins, it would have made a quarter-billion dollars.
Instead, it made about a tenth as much--but is a much better movie for
it.

About the Author

Christopher Orr is a senior editor and the principal film critic at The Atlantic. He has written on movies for The New Republic, LA Weekly, Salon, and The New York Sun, and has worked as an editor for numerous publications.

Most Popular

Writing used to be a solitary profession. How did it become so interminably social?

Whether we’re behind the podium or awaiting our turn, numbing our bottoms on the chill of metal foldout chairs or trying to work some life into our terror-stricken tongues, we introverts feel the pain of the public performance. This is because there are requirements to being a writer. Other than being a writer, I mean. Firstly, there’s the need to become part of the writing “community”, which compels every writer who craves self respect and success to attend community events, help to organize them, buzz over them, and—despite blitzed nerves and staggering bowels—present and perform at them. We get through it. We bully ourselves into it. We dose ourselves with beta blockers. We drink. We become our own worst enemies for a night of validation and participation.

Even when a dentist kills an adored lion, and everyone is furious, there’s loftier righteousness to be had.

Now is the point in the story of Cecil the lion—amid non-stop news coverage and passionate social-media advocacy—when people get tired of hearing about Cecil the lion. Even if they hesitate to say it.

But Cecil fatigue is only going to get worse. On Friday morning, Zimbabwe’s environment minister, Oppah Muchinguri, called for the extradition of the man who killed him, the Minnesota dentist Walter Palmer. Muchinguri would like Palmer to be “held accountable for his illegal action”—paying a reported $50,000 to kill Cecil with an arrow after luring him away from protected land. And she’s far from alone in demanding accountability. This week, the Internet has served as a bastion of judgment and vigilante justice—just like usual, except that this was a perfect storm directed at a single person. It might be called an outrage singularity.

Forget credit hours—in a quest to cut costs, universities are simply asking students to prove their mastery of a subject.

MANCHESTER, Mich.—Had Daniella Kippnick followed in the footsteps of the hundreds of millions of students who have earned university degrees in the past millennium, she might be slumping in a lecture hall somewhere while a professor droned. But Kippnick has no course lectures. She has no courses to attend at all. No classroom, no college quad, no grades. Her university has no deadlines or tenure-track professors.

Instead, Kippnick makes her way through different subject matters on the way to a bachelor’s in accounting. When she feels she’s mastered a certain subject, she takes a test at home, where a proctor watches her from afar by monitoring her computer and watching her over a video feed. If she proves she’s competent—by getting the equivalent of a B—she passes and moves on to the next subject.

The Wall Street Journal’s eyebrow-raising story of how the presidential candidate and her husband accepted cash from UBS without any regard for the appearance of impropriety that it created.

The Swiss bank UBS is one of the biggest, most powerful financial institutions in the world. As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton intervened to help it out with the IRS. And after that, the Swiss bank paid Bill Clinton $1.5 million for speaking gigs. TheWall Street Journal reported all that and more Thursday in an article that highlights huge conflicts of interest that the Clintons have created in the recent past.

The piece begins by detailing how Clinton helped the global bank.

“A few weeks after Hillary Clinton was sworn in as secretary of state in early 2009, she was summoned to Geneva by her Swiss counterpart to discuss an urgent matter. The Internal Revenue Service was suing UBS AG to get the identities of Americans with secret accounts,” the newspaper reports. “If the case proceeded, Switzerland’s largest bank would face an impossible choice: Violate Swiss secrecy laws by handing over the names, or refuse and face criminal charges in U.S. federal court. Within months, Mrs. Clinton announced a tentative legal settlement—an unusual intervention by the top U.S. diplomat. UBS ultimately turned over information on 4,450 accounts, a fraction of the 52,000 sought by the IRS.”

There’s no way this man could be president, right? Just look at him: rumpled and scowling, bald pate topped by an entropic nimbus of white hair. Just listen to him: ranting, in his gravelly Brooklyn accent, about socialism. Socialism!

And yet here we are: In the biggest surprise of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, this thoroughly implausible man, Bernie Sanders, is a sensation.

He is drawing enormous crowds—11,000 in Phoenix, 8,000 in Dallas, 2,500 in Council Bluffs, Iowa—the largest turnout of any candidate from any party in the first-to-vote primary state. He has raised $15 million in mostly small donations, to Hillary Clinton’s $45 million—and unlike her, he did it without holding a single fundraiser. Shocking the political establishment, it is Sanders—not Martin O’Malley, the fresh-faced former two-term governor of Maryland; not Joe Biden, the sitting vice president—to whom discontented Democratic voters looking for an alternative to Clinton have turned.

During the multi-country press tour for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation, not even Jon Stewart has dared ask Tom Cruise about Scientology.

During the media blitz for Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation over the past two weeks, Tom Cruise has seemingly been everywhere. In London, he participated in a live interview at the British Film Institute with the presenter Alex Zane, the movie’s director, Christopher McQuarrie, and a handful of his fellow cast members. In New York, he faced off with Jimmy Fallon in a lip-sync battle on The Tonight Show and attended the Monday night premiere in Times Square. And, on Tuesday afternoon, the actor recorded an appearance on The Daily Show With Jon Stewart, where he discussed his exercise regimen, the importance of a healthy diet, and how he still has all his own hair at 53.

Stewart, who during his career has won two Peabody Awards for public service and the Orwell Award for “distinguished contribution to honesty and clarity in public language,” represented the most challenging interviewer Cruise has faced on the tour, during a challenging year for the actor. In April, HBO broadcast Alex Gibney’s documentary Going Clear, a film based on the book of the same title by Lawrence Wright exploring the Church of Scientology, of which Cruise is a high-profile member. The movie alleges, among other things, that the actor personally profited from slave labor (church members who were paid 40 cents an hour to outfit the star’s airplane hangar and motorcycle), and that his former girlfriend, the actress Nazanin Boniadi, was punished by the Church by being forced to do menial work after telling a friend about her relationship troubles with Cruise. For Cruise “not to address the allegations of abuse,” Gibney said in January, “seems to me palpably irresponsible.” But in The Daily Show interview, as with all of Cruise’s other appearances, Scientology wasn’t mentioned.

An attack on an American-funded military group epitomizes the Obama Administration’s logistical and strategic failures in the war-torn country.

Last week, the U.S. finally received some good news in Syria:.After months of prevarication, Turkey announced that the American military could launch airstrikes against Islamic State positions in Syria from its base in Incirlik. The development signaled that Turkey, a regional power, had at last agreed to join the fight against ISIS.

The announcement provided a dose of optimism in a conflict that has, in the last four years, killed over 200,000 and displaced millions more. Days later, however, the positive momentum screeched to a halt. Earlier this week, fighters from the al-Nusra Front, an Islamist group aligned with al-Qaeda, reportedly captured the commander of Division 30, a Syrian militia that receives U.S. funding and logistical support, in the countryside north of Aleppo. On Friday, the offensive escalated: Al-Nusra fighters attacked Division 30 headquarters, killing five and capturing others. According to Agence France Presse, the purpose of the attack was to obtain sophisticated weapons provided by the Americans.

The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it.

What is the Islamic State?

Where did it come from, and what are its intentions? The simplicity of these questions can be deceiving, and few Western leaders seem to know the answers. In December, The New York Times published confidential comments by Major General Michael K. Nagata, the Special Operations commander for the United States in the Middle East, admitting that he had hardly begun figuring out the Islamic State’s appeal. “We have not defeated the idea,” he said. “We do not even understand the idea.” In the past year, President Obama has referred to the Islamic State, variously, as “not Islamic” and as al-Qaeda’s “jayvee team,” statements that reflected confusion about the group, and may have contributed to significant strategic errors.

Some say the so-called sharing economy has gotten away from its central premise—sharing.

This past March, in an up-and-coming neighborhood of Portland, Maine, a group of residents rented a warehouse and opened a tool-lending library. The idea was to give locals access to everyday but expensive garage, kitchen, and landscaping tools—such as chainsaws, lawnmowers, wheelbarrows, a giant cider press, and soap molds—to save unnecessary expense as well as clutter in closets and tool sheds.

The residents had been inspired by similar tool-lending libraries across the country—in Columbus, Ohio; in Seattle, Washington; in Portland, Oregon. The ethos made sense to the Mainers. “We all have day jobs working to make a more sustainable world,” says Hazel Onsrud, one of the Maine Tool Library’s founders, who works in renewable energy. “I do not want to buy all of that stuff.”

A controversial treatment shows promise, especially for victims of trauma.

It’s straight out of a cartoon about hypnosis: A black-cloaked charlatan swings a pendulum in front of a patient, who dutifully watches and ping-pongs his eyes in turn. (This might be chased with the intonation, “You are getting sleeeeeepy...”)

Unlike most stereotypical images of mind alteration—“Psychiatric help, 5 cents” anyone?—this one is real. An obscure type of therapy known as EMDR, or Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing, is gaining ground as a potential treatment for people who have experienced severe forms of trauma.

Here’s the idea: The person is told to focus on the troubling image or negative thought while simultaneously moving his or her eyes back and forth. To prompt this, the therapist might move his fingers from side to side, or he might use a tapping or waving of a wand. The patient is told to let her mind go blank and notice whatever sensations might come to mind. These steps are repeated throughout the session.